Observational studyEuropean radiology2019
Is dual-phase C-arm CBCT sufficiently accurate for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer liver metastasis during liver intra-arterial treatment?
Observational study in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to estimate the accuracy of dual-phase C-arm cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for the detection of colorectal cancer liver metastases, as compared with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween March 2014 and December 2016, 49 consecutive patients referred for intra-arterial treatment for colorectal cancer liver metastases were enrolled in a single-center observational study. All patients were examined with MDCT and with dual-phase C-arm cone beam computed tomography performed after iodine injection in the proper hepatic artery before intra-arterial treatment. Two blinded observers independently reviewed all examinations. Diagnostic accuracy was determined using both a six-cell matrix method and a "worst-case scenario."
resultsReaders identified at MDCT 264 colorectal liver metastases and 43 other liver lesions. The early and late arterial phase showed 240 and 277 liver lesions respectively. A certainty of the diagnosis was obtained in 63% and 85% at the early (EAP) and late arterial phase (LAP), respectively. Streak artifacts or liver segment truncation, or inadequate enhancement was responsible for the inability to see or to correctly adjudicate a lesion to a diagnosis in 27% and 15% of the cases at the EAP and LAP. The "worst-case scenario" yielded a Se and Sp of 58% and 51%, respectively, at EAP and 84% and 70%, respectively, at LAP.
conclusionOn CBCT, EAP showed limited accuracy. LAP provided the best tumor detectability. KEY POINTS: • The early arterial phase (EAP) yielded poor accuracy: Se = 58% and Sp = 51% (p < 0.0001). • The late arterial phase (LAP) phase yielded good accuracy: Se = 84% and Se = 70% (p = 0.02). • The probability of a correct diagnosis at the EAP was 60%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.